Women in Combat

BigTex, I think you have stumbled onto something. Let the women who want to fight prove they can kick ass against average male soldiers. Not the ones who wash out, and not the special forces, but guys who meet the minimum standards, can camp out in the woods for a week, and can beat up about half the other guys who made it through the same tests. So few women would make it that it would prove what a stupid idea it is, and what a bunch of phonies or stupid retards are promoting it.
Men and women are different, and have different strengths and weaknesses. That is something we should be grateful for, and not try to eliminate it so a few ball busting feminist bitches can momentarily be less unhappy about their shitty existence.

Amen my brother. I wish the people promoting women in combat consider there own daughters getting their asses shot at, wounded, and raped by the enemy, held in cages for years, and left emotionally scarred for left just so they could claim another "emancipation".
Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

First let me say I agree with you that women in front line combat roles is a mistake but I lose faith in your reasoning when you imply that it is less terrible for a man to be shot at, sexually tortured by the enemy, held in cages for years and left emotionally scarred. I realize it is more socially acceptable when these things happen to a man because they have predominantly happened to men over and over again throughout history but the pain and suffering of those and their families is quite equal regardless of gender.

First let me say I agree with you that women in front line combat roles is a mistake but I lose faith in your reasoning when you imply that it is less terrible for a man to be shot at, sexually tortured by the enemy, held in cages for years and left emotionally scarred. I realize it is more socially acceptable when these things happen to a man because they have predominantly happened to men over and over again throughout history but the pain and suffering of those and their families is quite equal regardless of gender.
Originally Posted by bully

I agree it is terrible when it happens to men, also. I wish we never had war, but sometimes we have to hold our nose and do something we don't like.
Also, I clearly meant for life, not left.

First let me say I agree with you that women in front line combat roles is a mistake but I lose faith in your reasoning when you imply that it is less terrible for a man to be shot at, sexually tortured by the enemy, held in cages for years and left emotionally scarred. I realize it is more socially acceptable when these things happen to a man because they have predominantly happened to men over and over again throughout history but the pain and suffering of those and their families is quite equal regardless of gender.
Originally Posted by bully

I think we instinctly feel like it's a bad idea to have women go to war because we're hard wired against it. It's connected to survival of the species.

For thousands of years, even before recorded history, we humans have been going to war. If the war goes badly, the number of men may be greatly reduced for a time on the losing side. After a war, the surviving men are capable of impregnating large numbers of women. If the number of women had been greatly reduced, replenishing the population would be much more difficult.

When it comes to survival of the species, men are almost completely expendable.

I also would have concerns about our ememies rapping and torchering women if they are captured.

They could parade them in front of cameras. It could very easily poison the public resolve to win a war. That's exactly why the military never let it be known what happened to our female POWs in Desert Storm until after it was all over. It's one thing when they abuse our male POWs, It's worse when you see it happen to women. It wouldn't take long for the "Cut and Runners" to want to bug out and go home.

As a Vietnam Vet, maybe I have a little bit of perspective as to what it is really like in hostile enviroment.
I can not amagine a woman wanting to do some of the things we had to do. Hell, the vast majority of us men did not even want to do it.

That being said, I am sure that combat has changed quite a bit since the '60's. We now live in a world of push button warfare. The equipment is state of the art. Heck, even the basic combat helment, (kevlar), is 1000 percent better than that old iron pot we had to wear.

Most of our wars now seem to be fought in a climate where you can actually see 10 feet in front of you, and it's not raining 300 days of the year.

But, unless you have been face to face with another human being who has every intent of killing you, you never know what you will be able to do.

I have gone weeks without bathing, have had rashes so bad on my feet and crotch that you just would have to take a flame thrower too, and had bugs that modern science does not even know about bite me. Add to that the absolute mysery of having to lugg everything you own that will keep you alive for days.

If women want to do that, I guess let them have it. But remember, in the end, there is not a whole lot of glory in any of it. Sooner or later, you just want to be able to stay alive till the next morning.

I think the rape issue is legitimate. Rape has historically been a instrument of horror in warfare, even considered one of the spoils of war in many conflicts. We can choose to ignore the possibilities, but that does not make it go away. I suspect that any American Woman captured by an Islamic Terrorist would be treated the same way they treat their own women. Think about that.

And also keep this in mind. As a draftee, I knew that all I had to do was 12 months in Country, less than that if you were lucky enough to get a "go home hit" like I did. And that was it, period. After that, it was women and children first. In todays "modern Army", the odds go up of getting maimed or killed every time you get re-deployed. Which seems to be a major problem.